JoshuaZ, Stalker Extraordinaire, He's trying to resurrect that redirect Options

[Random832]

Besides, one could easily avoid any possibility of being discovered

Considering that the chronological ordering of IRC messages is a partial order rather than a total order, it is in theory possible to use discrepancies in the ordering of messages in different logs significantly narrow down who is recording the logs, provided that whoever it is is an active user. I'm surprised this hasn't been done (or attempted) already, though it would take a fairly large sample, another complete set of logs, and of course the requirement that the user recording the logs is actually participating in discussion.

[Kato]

Proposed topic ban of JoshuaZ on the Brandt related articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...n_Daniel_Brandt

[Derktar]

Looks like a nerve was struck, well in that case...

Yes everyone, JoshuaZ did sockpuppet abusively, and some people tried to give him a pass. Read all about it here.

Your lies won't save you this time.

[The Wales Hunter]

Joshua is now rushing around to deny the socking:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207398547

Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207405073

Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Does he not realise that by making his denials off-wiki, he is looking even more guilty than ever?

[Moulton]

I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those aspects of his mindset as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.

[Somey]

Considering that the chronological ordering of IRC messages is a partial order rather than a total order, it is in theory possible to use discrepancies in the ordering of messages in different logs significantly narrow down who is recording the logs, provided that whoever it is is an active user.

We've thought of that (for what that's worth)... That's one of the reasons for releasing the material in bits and pieces, and with lines about who's coming in and leaving either removed or repositioned. I'm all for removing them entirely, myself - that should prevent the various log sources from being identified.

There's a lot of material involved, and I did get started at one point on a program to do that automatically, as well as things like translating text-only URL's to HREF tags, randomly changing the time/datestamp formats on each line, maybe adding links from IRC handles to WP userpages, etc., etc.. I'll have to pick that project up again, along with the dozens of other things I've been promising to do around here!

I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those aspects of his mindset as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.

And would you rather do this in a thread that's write-access-limited to the two of you exclusively? It's technically feasible, but I don't think we've ever done that before. Also, I'm not even sure what the point would be - is there some solution to this situation that doesn't involve him just backing off, preferably for good?

[dogbiscuit]

...wow! and on to arbcom already, courtesy of our very old friend NonVocalScream.

JoshuaZ defends his sockpuppeting, under the impression that people are not aware of the full evidence against him, but seems already prepared to concede a topic ban.

[The Wales Hunter]

If Majorly (Alex on here) after seeing Joshua's email "evidence" that showed he didn't sock was convinced, then I'm tempted to believe that Joshua, in fact, didn't sock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207410540

I have stricken my comment above due to information I have received which shows I jumped the gun a bit when I made that comment. My apologies. I suggest everyone who voted "per Majorly" to think again. Still, I think Josh seriously needs a break from this article. Majorly (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[Moulton]

I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those aspects of his mindset as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.

And would you rather do this in a thread that's write-access-limited to the two of you exclusively? It's technically feasible, but I don't think we've ever done that before. Also, I'm not even sure what the point would be - is there some solution to this situation that doesn't involve him just backing off, preferably for good?

I suppose if 1) Joshua requested it and/or 2) our tete-a-tete became impossible due to disruptive levels of rotten tomatoes jamming the conversation, then your suggestion might be needed.

The point would be for Joshua and I to explore the issues that drive this long-running conflict and see if we can discover any useful insights leading to either a detente or (Kato's horror at the prospect notwithstanding) a resolution acceptable to the adversarial parties.

[Somey]

If Majorly (Alex on here) after seeing Joshua's email "evidence" that showed he didn't sock was convinced, then I'm tempted to believe that Joshua, in fact, didn't sock...

If this evidence is similar in quality to the kind of evidence they use to make themselves believe that people do use multiple accounts to manipulate WP processes, then I'm tempted to laugh it off as nonsense without even bothering to look.

[Kato]

The point would be for Joshua and I to explore the issues that drive this long-running conflict and see if we can discover any useful insights leading to either a detente or (Kato's horror at the prospect notwithstanding) a resolution acceptable to the adversarial parties.

[KamrynMatika]

For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)

[Derktar]

For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)

Well please post it here, I would love to see it since the Arb conversation evidence is damning.

[Jon Awbrey]

I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those aspects of his mindset as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.

And would you rather do this in a thread that's write-access-limited to the two of you exclusively? It's technically feasible, but I don't think we've ever done that before. Also, I'm not even sure what the point would be — is there some solution to this situation that doesn't involve him just backing off, preferably for good?

Couldn't we just all chip in to get them a room at the Motel 6 and save ourselves the expense of buying all those barf bags?

Kinda gives a whole nu nuance to PayPal though, doesn't it?

Jon

[Somey]

The point would be for Joshua and I to explore the issues that drive this long-running conflict and see if we can discover any useful insights leading to either a detente or (Kato's horror at the prospect notwithstanding) a resolution acceptable to the adversarial parties.

I dunno, Mr. Moulton... you may be overstating the complexity of this issue just a tad...

I mean, this is what we know:

1. D. Brandt doesn't want an article about himself in Wikipedia, or a redirect from his name to another article.

2. JoshuaZ wants to maintain Wikipedia's usefulness as a revenge platform, at all costs.

3. ....

4. Profit!

What's so complicated about this?

I realize the issue for him is that Brandt continues to publish the Hivemind page despite the deletion of both the article and the redirect... But if you get into a "conversation" with Joshy, he's just going to spout a bunch of nonsense about "injecting oneself into the public sphere" and "the integrity of the encyclopedia" and "the whole notion of privacy" being "redefined by the internet." He doesn't care about public editability, the effects of Google rankings, or administrative malfeasance... he might as well not even think those things exist. JoshuaZ is a head-in-the-sand, see-no-evil, hard-line reactionary. Trying to get him to change his mind, or even compromise, is just a waste of time, at least in my opinion.

The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess...

A bit?

[Kato]

JoshuaZ claims he cannot reveal the details of why his IP showed up to vote on Brandt related articles using a different account. His reasons are that the details are private. They reveal "very personal information regarding my medical history" he says.

[dogbiscuit]

For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)

Well please post it here, I would love to see it since the Arb conversation evidence is damning.

Alex (Majorly) has been checking out the Arbcom conversation from February which is posted here. Summary was that all the big names, including Jimbo, tried their best to hint to J how to get himself off the hook, but he was not bright enough to take the hint. I think the damning evidence is the double voting ahead of his own vote, which would be a pretty smart trick to achieve.

[Derktar]

Ah Joshua is on here at the moment, why don't you have a quick chat with us?

[Daniel Brandt]

I want to hear about that rootkit. Is it anything like the woman who was sued by RIAA for distribution of music tracks? Her lawyer argued that it may have been a neighbor on Wi-Fi, but it turned out that the woman didn't even have Wi-Fi on her computer. The woman lost the case.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)

If the summary is "I was h4×0rd by Brandt", is it worth posting?

In the light of the documented evidence, this kind of "defence" would look pretty weak without actual law-enforcement involvement and a prosecution. Sockin' Josh does not have a sufficient reputation for honesty to take his word.

This post has been edited by UseOnceAndDestroy: Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:37pm